India, US agree to ink 10-year framework to boost defence ties
The decision on the defence framework was mentioned in a Pentagon statement that was released on Wednesday, a day after Singh and US Defence Secretary Hegseth held a phone conversation.
"Secretary Hegseth and Minister Singh agreed to sign the next 10-year US-India Defence Framework when they next meet this year," it said.
It said the two sides discussed pending major US defence sales to India and the imperative of close defence industrial cooperation between the two countries.
"Secretary Hegseth emphasised the priority the United States places on India as its key defence partner in South Asia," the Pentagon said.
It said the two leaders reviewed the "considerable progress" both countries have made toward achieving the defence goals set out in the February 2025 joint statement by President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
"The two discussed pending major US defence sales to India and the imperative of close defence industrial cooperation between the two countries," the Pentagon readout said without providing further details.
In the phone conversation on Tuesday, Singh urged Hegseth to expedite the delivery of GE F404 engines to power the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft, people familiar with the matter said.
Singh also pitched for early finalisation of a proposed deal between Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) and US defence major GE Aerospace for joint production of F414 jet engines in India, they said.
The delay in the supply of F404 engines by GE Aerospace has resulted in HAL missing the deadline to supply Tejas Mark 1A aircraft to the Indian Air Force.
An Indian readout on Tuesday said Singh and Hegseth discussed a wide canvas of issues ranging from long-term cooperation in the defence sector, including training and military exchanges, to expanding industry collaborations.
"They agreed to further build upon the momentum of this critical and mutually beneficial partnership across all its pillars such as interoperability, integration of defence industrial supply chains, logistics sharing, increased joint military exercises and cooperation with other like-minded partners," it said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
18 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
What are mail-in ballots? Here are the countries that use this voting method
When Donald Trump posted on social media this week vowing to 'get rid of mail-in ballots,' he lit up an argument that has been following him since the last election cycle. CNN notes the former president went so far as to claim the US is 'the only country' that uses mail-in voting, blaming the system for what he called 'massive voter fraud.' Donald Trump has claimed that the US is the only country to use mail-in ballots.(AFP) What is a mail-in ballot? Voters receive a ballot at home, fill it out, and then return it by mail or drop it off at a secure location. The process is often used by Americans overseas, members of the military, seniors, or anyone who cannot make it to a polling station. Also read: No voting machines, no mail-in ballots: Donald Trump plans US election revamp Mail-in ballots: Where else are they used? Plenty of other democracies use the same method. Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, and Switzerland all allow their citizens to vote by mail. The rules are not identical - in some places you have to request a ballot, in others it is sent automatically - but the principle is the same. Far from being abandoned, mail-in ballots are part of normal election practice around the world. Even inside the US, it is not a partisan thing. Utah, a Republican-led state, has mailed ballots to its voters for years. Its elections, like those in other states that lean heavily on mail voting, have not been rocked by widespread fraud. That undercuts Trump's line that 'all others gave it up.' Also read: What do 'skibidi', 'delulu', and 'tradwife' mean? Gen Z slang added to Cambridge Dictionary Fraud concerns and security issues surrounding mail-in ballots Election experts say there is always a sliver of risk, but the scale matters. Out of millions of ballots cast in federal elections, cases of fraud are rare. David Becker, who runs the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, told CNN, 'Our elections are more secure, transparent, and verified than ever before in American history, thanks to the thousands of professional election officials of both parties, at the state and local level, that oversee them.' Trump also argued that states must run elections the way the president directs. This runs counter to the US Constitution. Article I, Section 4 makes clear that states control how elections are conducted unless Congress steps in. Richard Hasen, an election law professor at UCLA, called Trump's view 'wrong and dangerous,' adding that any executive order to ban mail-in voting would be tossed out in court. For now, the facts stand: mail-in ballots are legitimate, widely used, and firmly embedded in both US and global elections. FAQs: 1. What is a mail-in ballot? It's a ballot sent to a voter by mail, filled out at home, and returned by post or drop box. 2. Which countries use mail-in voting? Countries like Canada, the UK, Germany, Australia, and Switzerland allow it. 3. Does mail-in voting cause widespread fraud? No, experts say cases exist but are extremely rare. 4. Can the US president ban mail-in ballots? No, election rules are set by states and Congress, not the president. 5. Why is mail-in voting important? It gives access to voters who cannot get to polling places, such as overseas citizens and the elderly.
Economic Times
26 minutes ago
- Economic Times
A chill is setting in that will take a long time to recover in the India-US relationship
Synopsis The India-US relationship has deteriorated, with disproportionate responses from the White House despite India's efforts to address trade concerns. Political imperatives in the US, rather than trade merits, seem to be driving the decisions, leading to a chill in relations and a hardening public mood in India. Over the past few weeks, as the India-US relationship has near-imploded, several opinions and assessments have emerged. Most analysts have been measured and thoughtful, and attempted to discern the long view. Others have been astonishingly uninformed, ranging from amateurs talking through their hats to (former) professionals opining through their golf caps. ADVERTISEMENT To be sure, any consequential policy episode must see a reckoning and self-appraisal within the government. This is to be expected in an accountable democracy. The external affairs ministry, commerce ministry and even the PMO would naturally undertake such an exercise. Were there diplomatic missteps? Could the trade negotiations have gone differently? Were gaps in Operation Sindoor's strategic comms deterministic? These are all good questions. Since there is always room for improvement, they must be asked and deliberated upon. However, this should not deflect from a fundamental and pivotal point: nothing India did, no act of commission or omission, merited the sort of response that has come from the White House and Trump regime. It's egregiously disproportionate. Inevitably, this warrants the conclusion that the issue is not about some minor sticking point that can be resolved with a 'high-level phone call' here, or more 'trade concessions' there. Advice that India should rethink its position on GM food, or making investment announcements even without resources to back them, is not particularly sensible those who should know better have advocated reckless and adventurist approaches that no Indian minister, civil servant or public official - past, present and future - can carry out. The legitimate restraints of the Indian system will always - and correctly - prevent also needs to be said India's diplomats recognised the importance of the trade and tariffs issue very early, and worked to a win-win plan. On their part, trade negotiators from the commerce ministry - again, often criticised - came up with the most ambitious market-access package in India's history. They were given the political space for it by the PM, and they delivered. ADVERTISEMENT Whatever else it is, the White House's rejection/non- acceptance of the trade offer - which would give the US an unprecedented market and strategic advantage in India - is not on merits. Even USTR insiders have that appreciation. So, what is driving the Trump regime's decision flow? How goalposts have shifted repeatedly in recent weeks would suggest that trade imperatives have long given way to political imperatives, perhaps even strategic and domestic calculations in the US president's inner council. If that is, indeed, the case, the basket of bilateral challenges could both deepen and expand in the near term. ADVERTISEMENT Either way, the relationship will take a long time to recover to the levels of political trust it has been used to over the past 20 years. A chill is setting in. The public mood is hardening, and the pressure on the Narendra Modi government - including on its ability to offer further trade concessions - is there for all to reckoning in New Delhi is that India is facing the most structured and coercive assault on its strategic autonomy - industrial and policy - in a long time. Inevitably, this perception will shape reactions. Consequences will not be limited to just the immediate future. ADVERTISEMENT No doubt there will be an economic cost. 50% tariffs are not going to be easy to manage, particularly for industries significantly dependent on US exports. Yet, this will also make other sectors wary of the geopolitical risks of excessive market exposure to the US. Rather than spur further engagement - as the trajectory of India-US relations has done in recent decades - it will induce caution and a desire to hedge and diversify. India's economic approaches towards China and Russia will become a self-fulfilling prophecy for Washington's tariff a slightly longer, but still not-too-distant, timeframe, India could conclude a trade deal with the EU. Once the EU recovers from its current 'He loves us, he loves us not' trans-Atlantic minuet, and assesses its position in the ballroom, it will note the opportunity of the moment. Next, India needs to find a non-China, non-RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) pathway to an economic and supply chains partnership with the Indo-Pacific. ADVERTISEMENT CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) lends itself as an idea. Admittedly, CPTPP standards are very stringent. Could there be a trade-off between political comfort - the absence of arm-twisting and/or supply chains surrender - and calibrating just how much an external trade agreement could be used to drive internal reform and regulatory change? The process will not be easy, or without pain. Even so, if it is achieved, it could give India a longer-term hedge and option vis-a-vis the US. The lessons of the Summer of 2025 will alter the baseline for a reset, whenever that happens. This is not a stare-down India wanted - or, more accurately, wants. But whatever happens, India cannot allow itself to be outstared. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of (Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, Budget 2024 Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.) Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online. NEXT STORY
News18
29 minutes ago
- News18
Back in Oval Office, Zelenskyy wears blazer and Trump doesnt shout
Agency: PTI Last Updated: Washington, Aug 19 (AP) It was only a few months ago that US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy last met in the Oval Office, but Monday's face-to-face between the two leaders looked markedly different. For much of their February exchange, during which Trump and Vice President JD Vance blasted Zelenskyy as 'disrespectful" and warned about future American support for his country, Zelenskyy crossed his arms and looked askance at the US leaders. The presidents often spoke over each other, also gesturing disagreement. A conservative reporter, Brian Glenn, even asked Zelenskyy why he wasn't wearing a suit. Monday's meeting was rounded out with more smiles and pleasantries between Trump and Zelenskyy, as well as agreement on some points regarding Russia's ongoing war against Ukraine. Both men largely sat with their hands clasped in their laps, affably fielding questions from reporters. And Glenn, when called upon by the Republican US president to speak, complimented Zelensky, saying, 'You look fabulous in that suit." Trump chimed in right after: 'I said the same thing!" (AP) RD RD RD Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Loading comments...
